August 29, 2007

GOP To Craig: We Love Ya ... Too Bad You Gotta Run

Larry Craig defended himself yesterday by insisting that he had done nothing wrong, and that his decision to plead guilty was a mistake that he regretted. He also insisted that he would keep his Senate seat and didn't rule out running for re-election. However, some of his colleagues would prefer to see him running for the next flight back to Idaho, even in the White House:

Idaho Sen. Larry Craig's political support eroded significantly Wednesday as three fellow Republicans in Congress called for his resignation and party leaders pushed him from senior committee posts.

The White House expressed its disappointment, too — and not a word of support for the 62-year-old lawmaker, who pleaded guilty earlier this month to a charge stemming from an undercover police operation in an airport men's room.

Craig "represents the Republican party," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, the first fellow GOP member of Congress to urge a resignation. ...

Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Norm Coleman of Minnesota joined Hoekstra in urging Craig to step down.

McCain spoke out on an interview with CNN. "My opinion is that when you plead guilty to a crime, you shouldn't serve. That's not a moral stand. That's not a holier-than-thou. It's just a factual situation."

Craig has more problems on the horizon. His own caucus plans to send a complaint to the Ethics Committee, which would have to conduct an embarrassing investigation into the incident. That would likely involve a subpoena to the arresting officer and some highly inflammatory testimony. The headlines would be brutal, and the blogosphere and punditocracy would have a field day.

McCain's standard needs a little tweaking, however. I believe that Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) managed to plead guilty to a DUI last year without endangering his seat in Congress. Driving under the influence, especially as Kennedy did, represents a greater danger to the community than attempting to make a sexual connection in an airport restroom -- and yet few people demanded Kennedy's resignation. If we want to establish standards of conduct that require members to resign after pleading guilty to crimes of any stripe, let's make sure we're applying that standard equally. The same should be said about ethics investigations as well.

That said, the severe lack of judgment shown by Craig certainly makes it clear that he can't be taken seriously as a representative of Idaho or anywhere else. I'd prefer that the people of Idaho render their judgment on Craig, perhaps with a recall process if they're incensed enough to remove him from office. Failing that, I'd prefer he leave so that Idaho's governor can appoint someone whose presence in Congress won't be a continuing embarrassment, but in the end it's the people of Idaho who should determine how embarrassed they are over this public peccadillo.

Republicans have made their distaste for their colleague clear, as they should. Craig now knows where he stands with his caucus and his party. He could take the honorable way out and resign under his own steam, but in the end, Idaho elected him and it's ultimately Idaho's decision as to whether he can represent them -- just as Louisiana had to take responsibility for David Vitter.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference GOP To Craig: We Love Ya ... Too Bad You Gotta Run:

» GOP's Problem Child from Conservative Musings
I have been rather impressed that for the most part, when conservatives have real legal problems and convictions, they end up seeing the light of day. Even in cartoons. I am also impressed with the push from the minority leadership [Read More]

» Political Scandals: Democrats vs. Republicans from Stuck On Stupid
Now that the Republicans have another “scandal” among the ranks of the Senate with Larry Craig playing “footsy” and displaying ” hand signals” in an airport men’s room and his guilty plea to a misdemeanor cha... [Read More]

Comments (50)

Posted by The Mechanical Eye | August 29, 2007 4:45 PM

I think if Sen. Craig is forced out before anything happens to Sen. Vitter, who actually paid prostitutes, then it speaks volumes about the GOP and its sense of morality.


Posted by philw | August 29, 2007 5:07 PM

McCain spoke out on an interview with CNN. "My opinion is that when you plead guilty to a crime, you shouldn't serve. That's not a moral stand. That's not a holier-than-thou. It's just a factual situation."

Get a clue Senator. Your immigration butt buddy Ted Kennedy plead guilty to a 'minor' crime that resulted in the DEATH of a young woman. When did you call for his resignation?

Posted by philw | August 29, 2007 5:11 PM

McCain spoke out on an interview with CNN. "My opinion is that when you plead guilty to a crime, you shouldn't serve. That's not a moral stand. That's not a holier-than-thou. It's just a factual situation."

Get a clue Senator. Your immigration butt buddy Ted Kennedy plead guilty to a 'minor' crime that resulted in the DEATH of a young woman. When did you call for his resignation?

Posted by Carol Herman | August 29, 2007 5:28 PM

InstaPundit has a link to Gay Patriot (again.) And, here you'll find Mark Steyn's words:

Mark Steyn has a similar reaction to Craig’s unending stupidity.

Yes, I feel sorry for Mrs Craig and the family, too, but come on, the Senator’s statement in Boise this afternoon invites only a wholly deserved contempt. What was all that stuff about there being a “cloud over Idaho”? There’s no cloud over Idaho, there’s a cloud over him. The State of Idaho wasn’t in the stall of the men’s room at Minneapolis Airport, and the State of Idaho didn’t choose to cop a plea. If you’re going to dissemble, at least try not to be so pompous and narcissistic when you’re doing it.

And what was all that business about blaming it all on the “strain” brought about by The Idaho Statesman? What kind of excuse is that? “I wouldn’t have wound up in that men’s room if you guys hadn’t been investigating my secret gay sex life.”

This was a ridiculous performance.

Posted by AW1 Tim | August 29, 2007 5:32 PM

Cap'n Ed,

Forgive me, but are you serious about that whole Kennedy & DUI thing? Nobody gives two hoots about a Kennedy and drunkeness. It's expected of them, sort of a genetic thing, passed down through the generations. Good Lord, the first time we get a Kennedy elected to office without some sort of moral defect will be a verifiable sign of the impending Apocolypse.

It's be like finding John Kerry NOT trying to put the make on some rich widow.....


Posted by Carol Herman | August 29, 2007 5:48 PM

Here's how the religious-right messes up.

When the complaints came in about Bill Clinton, some "adults" said "it was the lying." And, then, the most naive people are on have had their brains sucked out of their heads by religious dogma; because they just can't believe church deacons; or priests, could malfunction sexually. And, still stand tall while they're praying out loud to Jesus.

Well, just like scoundrels who wrap themselves in the flag; the greater damage you're geting from Larry Craig; where the "way he hit on the cop" was given out as "Everything You Ever Wanted To know About Sex, But were Afraid to Ask." That male homosexual pickup line (tap, tap, tap. Red Bandanas. Green carnations in the lapel. The whole nine yards of how quick a promiscuous liason is! Is spelled out. That you don't want to believe this? Okey dokey.

But Larry Craig has damaged, by his own words, and actions, what's really believable. And, what's not.

Yeah, his wife was by his side. So what?

So he voted against gays while representing Idaho. So what?

He didn't give a damn about anything beyond his own narcissitic point of view. And, that's what he's dishing.

George Romney was the first to call Larry Craig's behaviors "disgusting." He labeled all of DC, as frankly full of odious people; where a lot of those elected to office, know all about the sewers. And, the Abramoff's. And, the trade-offs. And, the sex.

Now, if Larry Craig hangs tough; and it looks like it ain't gonna be a piece of cake. Since he's had to step down from the Veteran's Affairs Committee. All he can do is try to hang on. Did Bill Clinton do anything else?

You want laws that govern the standards of Bonkeys! INSANE.

And, on the Internet, which is the only place where I go to find "news" and opinions; Larry Craig isn't getting all that much sympthy, for his "left leg that wandered over into another stall, and tried to make "nice" to another man's shoe."

By the way AFTER Larry Craig leaves; and, he will. Even if he holds onto his chair until December; it's NOT good for the GOP that he's sticking around! That's like the Vatican thinking "they'll re-assign the pedophiles. Offer a little prayer, and psychological adjustments. And, the whole mess will just go away. No. It didn't.

Some people don't believe Larry Craig didn't "do anything wrong." Yeah. You don't see the evidence. But with his mouth, he lied about it. In standard fashion. Using his "wife by his side" trick.

Now, it's just a matter of time before the pervert chooses to go.

DC is still a stinking mess. Both teams suck.

Posted by docjim505 | August 29, 2007 5:51 PM

Cap'n Ed: I'd prefer that the people of Idaho render their judgment on Craig, perhaps with a recall process if they're incensed enough to remove him from office. Failing that, I'd prefer he leave so that Idaho's governor can appoint someone whose presence in Congress won't be a continuing embarrassment, but in the end it's the people of Idaho who should determine how embarrassed they are over this public peccadillo.

A sensible position, but I want him gone. I think that the rules of the Senate allow for the expulsion of a member for committing a crime, even one as (relatively) minor as this. Granted, I can't imagine that pack of crooks expelling one of their own for anything less than the videotaped rape and murder of an infant, but Craig needs to go and go immediately. He shouldn't resign; he should be booted out in disgrace as a clear demonstration that the GOP absolutely will not accept such bloody stupidity and criminal conduct from its elected officials. Is tarring and feathering too old-fashioned?

A bit OT, but Michelle Malkin* cautions conservatives against whining about Barney Frank, The Swimmer, and other democrat filth. This incident isn't about them or the plain fact that democrats are degenerates with no moral values whatsoever: it's about an apparent pervert and an obvious idiot who happens to (hangs head) be a GOP politician. Let's police our own and worry about double standards later.



Posted by patrick neid | August 29, 2007 5:57 PM

At the end of the day its all about icky homo sex. Very few people can get past the biological imperative that make this kind of sex taboo. To most straight people just thinking about it is creepy. It's nature's way. That's why Vitter walks and Craig doesn't.

As to Craig's supposed crime, that's why I said earlier, "thank god restrooms are not coed--there would be a lot of hypocrites walking around."

Mccain's crime dodge is just another of his ready, fire, aim quips.

Posted by notalawyer | August 29, 2007 6:05 PM

"Driving under the influence, especially as Kennedy did, represents a greater danger to the community than attempting to make a sexual connection in an airport restroom -- and yet few people demanded Kennedy's resignation."

Gay sex with unknown individuals actually presents a greater danger to the community than drunk driving.

45,669 people contracted AIDS in 2005 (the last year for which data is available). Untold numbers more contracted HIV which will likely lead to AIDS and have not been counted.

67% of these individuals were men who admit they have sex with men and/or use drugs at the same time.

This resulted in 17,011 deaths in 2005.

For comparison purposes, the number of people killed in accidents where alcohol was a factor in 2004 (the latest year that I can find statistics for) was lower - 16,694.

So again ... it seems wise to compare anonymous gay bathroom sex with drunk driving, and try to make it seem like that's a harmless activity, but a simple Google search of the facts belie that entire argument.

I can hardly believe that you advanced it.

Posted by Carol Herman | August 29, 2007 6:09 PM

Following your logic, Patrick Neid, gay man can have wedding ceremonies in toilets; which would cover the marriage and the sex act, "to follow."

While most gay men, (and yes, I think it's genetic), aren't into annonymous sex cruising gay toilets.

Just as I'd bet there are heterosexual men out there who've never been inside a whore house; nor have they invited a whore into their car for a "quicky."

In other words, the "argument" such as it was; that homosexuals were trying to use, while prying open the closet door; is that sex between consenting adults is natural. And, we shouldn't be so judgemental, when a man chooses another man. Looking for love in long term commitments.

What you get with toilet cruising, however, is the oddball "bump ahead" a man like the senator can give a young guy who lowers his pants.

To give you an idea how powerful those connections can be, I gotta tell ya, I've suspected that Bob Woodward of the WaPo "fame" got to "know" Mark Felt, in a CARNAL WAY! How so?

Well, Woodward was 27. In the Navy. And, sent to the White House with some official papers that needed to be signed. And, Mark Felt was also there. Needing Nixon's signatures. Both men were kept waiting. And, Woodward admits he began a "conversation" with Felt. Later events would include information how how Felt "trained him" to meet with him around 2:00 am. IN SECRET. In parking garages. Where Woodward wouldn't take a cab directly there. But had to exit blocks away. And, do a flim-flam dance on the way to the "asignation."

You bet, lots of homosexuals are cool with secrets.

But few Americans really understand it. Other than homosexual men were considered "easy to blackmail." Especially those at the top.

By the way, the GOP has fielded the complain against Craig in the Ethics Committee. There will be an investigation. People will be questioned under oath. And, Craig's lies will get exposed, should he choose not to resign, in a humiliating, and well attended investigation. This one's way too easy for the media to now kick out of the ballpark.

And, for the GOP? You're hearing the voices raised, now. Because this one isn't "going away."

And, in the end? Believe what you want. But Larry Craig IS lying! And, that has its costs among republicans. Or at least I've heard lots of republicans say as much.

Oh, there are enough gay guys who can testify. That information is what the Idoho Statemen had been following up on; when Craig brought his wife, and swore he "wasn't gay." (Because he can parse his bi-sexuality. Without which he'd have no wife.)

Posted by section9 | August 29, 2007 6:24 PM

Craig is a hideous embarrassment.

But despite the fact that Craig's personal hypocrisy is dominating the headlines, I strongly believe that in the end, both parties bases will return home next year.

I just think Craig is gone, and when he's gone, so is the scandal.

Posted by patrick neid | August 29, 2007 6:28 PM

Carol darling,

"Following your logic, Patrick Neid, gay man can have wedding ceremonies in toilets; which would cover the marriage and the sex act, "to follow."

that's your logic not mine. mine was as stated--if bathrooms were coed there would be a lot of hypocrites running around. it's obvious you are not a member of the mile high club. And don't forget it has to be with someone you met on the plane!

Posted by Greg | August 29, 2007 6:28 PM

I would just like someone to point out the painfully obvious. Craig is a Senator. He should have considerable knowledge of the law. If he doesn't know that he has a right to an attorney, then he should be making an exit from the Senate based on that alone. Most gang bangers and drug dealers know, call your lawyer first before you talk to the police.

He was arrested in June and pleaded guilty in August, and we are supposed to buy that this was a misunderstanding. The only thing that was misunderstood was how incredibly inept this dude was for any public office.

Senator Craig, please stop insulting our intelligence with your own stupidity. If you didn't have enough good sense to call a lawyer as soon as you could, you deserve to this. Any imbecile would be able to see the problem with pleading to disorderly conduct. You Senator Craig, are supposed to be smart enough to know how to write laws. If you make a blunder this totally boneheaded, please leave. We don't need you, your problem, or any bilge that you may want to pass off as legislation.

Posted by Rose | August 29, 2007 6:32 PM

Hey, Craig - don't let the door hit you in the behind on your way out!

Posted by AW1 Tim | August 29, 2007 5:32 PM

SO SORRY! What we EXPECT of a Kennedy and what WE CARE ABOUT regarding who is in office is NOT the same thing. Kennedy doesn't belong in office EITHER.
And McCain is a hypocrite.

But if the Dims had any moral authority, or credibility, Toady would have been gone 40 years ago.

That is why, when the Conservatives are through cleaning house with the GOP, none of them will be voting for the DIMS. No matter how much the DIMS dream that if they pretend to be "people of faith" that they can win over some of the base the GOP is dissing - that just ain't never gonna happen - NOT EVER!!!

Posted by Mark F. | August 29, 2007 6:32 PM

Uhh, Carol, would you please stop confusing some people by calling Willard MITT Romney by the name of his father, George?

Posted by Carol Herman | August 29, 2007 6:39 PM

There's a very old joke of some boys, who were watching the people going in and out of a local whore house. Finally, a priest comes out, and one of the boys turns to the others and says "I wonder who died, inside?"

The other thing I saw today, is how Idaho is home to about 200,000 Catholics. AND, 500,000 Mormons. In a state with a population of 1.4-million people.

I'm not an insider to the Romney campaign. Most of his stuff flies under my radar, to boot. Because I don't seek it out. But, yesterday, I saw Romney's statement. Then, today, I saw "how many Mormons live in Idaho."

Ya never know why politicians do what they do. But Larry Craig could'a hurt Romney's campaign real bad. He held the #2 spot. Which means? Romney invited him on board.

I've read that Larry Craig "quit" the Romney campaign. And, at least there was a phone call between the two.

What Romney did, publickly, however, inolves Drudge having the headline to the newspaper story.

And, on Sunday, where Drudge had someone from the National Enquirer on his radio show; what was discussed was HOW the National Enquirer, gave Drudge the LEAD, before the paper was breaking the story the next day.

In the media world, I'd bet Drudge gets lots of calls from Insiders. (I've even read someplace that the New Yuk Times breaks headlines with him, too.)

And, it just proves that the Internet is now the hub for news.

Do we change minds of others? I can't honestly say. I think Abraham Lincoln went about "wandering around" to get to the telegraph office; and the homes and offices of his administation, because he wanted as much knowledge as possible.

He even kept his door open to visitors. And, one of the things he said about this form of "news gathering," is that it helped him "bathe in public opinion."

We're doing just that, here.

While Larry Craig may be forced to go, not because of anything we say, here; but because the pressure from the insiders in the GOP is ON. I've figured out that much, myself.

How long will he hang on? Dunno.

But IF he doesn't leave before there's an Ethics Committee investigation; all those Bonkey plans, to keep on investigating Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales, go down the sewer.

The headliner is gonna be the "crusin' in the bathroom." And, you bet, the arresting cop will be a star witness. You'll also see homosexuals that will strike you as definite Bonkey voters. Why not. The "dick stick" is equal opportunity.

Don't forget, Larry Craig didn't flash his senator's card, until after the cop showed his badge.

How his wife copes with this I do not know. There are children. And, grandkids. And, this story has legs.

Not the ones Harry Reid wanted to dance with, though.

Also, I do not know how Mormon Churches, work. But there's so many Mormon's in Idaho, I wonder if this stuff gets discussed? From the pulpit, I mean. Romney's not a dunce!

Posted by Rose | August 29, 2007 6:44 PM

"Driving under the influence, especially as Kennedy did, represents a greater danger to the community than attempting to make a sexual connection in an airport restroom -- and yet few people demanded Kennedy's resignation."


MILLIONS have demanded Kennedy's resignation at several different intervals - powerful enough to force him to drop out of at least three Presidential runs.
The only thing that keeps him in power is the machine that pre-existed his career!

When your daddy builds a machine that votes enough unions and cemetaries...

That Congress didn't forbid him to be seated, which is within their authority....

Posted by edward cropper | August 29, 2007 6:48 PM

Why is it that homosexuality is considered perfectly ok for actors, writers, musicians, painters, models,etc. but the end of the world for an elected Republican ? The fact that Republicans make such ado about "family values" is one answer given. This of course is so much BS. Why be concerned about Republican hypocrisy and ignore DemocRAT hypocrisy? What about flamers like Barney Frank? This guy couldn't be any more gay if he wore a dress on the house floor. His misconduct with a male prostitute is well documented yet he is looked upon as some kind of elder statesman and a strong spokesman for liberal thinking. Read this quote from Time magazine about the Frank affair. "At the least, Frank's judgment was appallingly naive. After an initial encounter in which he paid Steve Gobie $80 for sex, the Congressman says he tried to lift the younger man out of drugs and prostitution by hiring him to run errands. He wrote letters to Gobie's probation officer and paid his psychiatric bills. He allowed Gobie the use of a car and sometimes his apartment when he was out of town.
After 18 months, Frank says, he dismissed Gobie upon discovering that he was bringing clients to Frank's apartment.
While the House could censure Frank or reprimand him, colleagues and constituents so far have been generally sympathetic. The scandal does not involve seducing a minor, as it does with Lukens, or adultery, since Frank is single. It is an incident from a past secret life that has come back to haunt a legislator who is widely respected. Frank can debate and speak extemporaneously better than almost anyone else in the House, and he tackles some of its more complex problems like immigration and housing."
Maybe if Craig promises to aid someone in the gay community, becomes more extemporaneous in his Senate debates, and presents a more naive demeanor he can keep his job.

Posted by Carol Herman | August 29, 2007 6:52 PM

Patrick Neid, what I was trying to show you, and others, is that marriage vows don't belong in toilets.

Now, you went 3,000 feet up, to "The Mile High Club" antics.

And, I'll tell you what.

If people did this on airplanes, today; especially if there were marshall's on board? THe sex addicts would be returned to their seats and cuffed down.

It's even possible the Captain would be told, and the plane would land, pronto, at an airport that wasn't on the original "destination roster."

Just because some gay men cruise toilets, doesn't mean "they can do it, because you can't prove it."

It means that when men walk into restrooms, and find stalls occupied by homosexuals "cruising," SOME tend to complain! And, that's why the cops were called into the Minneapolis/St. Paul airport men's room. BECAUSE OF COMPLAINTS. The vice squad showed up.

Now, it's possible Larry Craig will come to his senses, and resign. If not? You can count on senate hearings. What's Harry Reid gonna try to do? Postpone them till Christmas break when this senate packs up and goes home? My guess is that Harry Reid "is in the toilet" as far as his approval ratings go; so the Larry Craig ethics trial will be a BIG TICKET ITEM. (Okay. The senators will plan to hold it during the Baseball World Series.) Whatever they do; the way this one picks up steam on the Net. The way InstaPundit gives links out so people can find out what the Gay Patriot (a republican) is saying ... helps give people INFORMATION.

Yup. We're "bathe-ing in public opinion." And, Craig's defenders are in the minority. Or so it seems to me. (Seems the Internet doesn't have "slow news days." Even though we're heading into Labor Day weekend. AND, when September rolls around, Americans, again, pay attention to politics.) At least those who are at the beaches, and away from what's going on, now.

Posted by leftnomore | August 29, 2007 6:53 PM

I'm sick of the R's having to be all about "morality." NO ONE in politics has a clean sheet, yet WE always shoot down our exposed ones. I say, when Teddy goes, Craig goes.

Posted by bob | August 29, 2007 6:58 PM

I'm from Idaho and voted for Craig many times. I gave up on him during the immigration debate. I'm not broken up to see the man in the sewer. But I hope he doesn't resign, as I don't want 'Butch' Otter making an appointment. I hope he serves out his term, announcing he won't run again, as I would like to see a wide open republican primary fight.

Posted by Carol Herman | August 29, 2007 7:08 PM

Well, Edward Cropper, you said Barney Frank is so gay, he could wear a dress.

What if I agreed with you?

And,then noticed, hmm. No dress. Probably not even panty hose. So what keeps him in male clothing? Is it possible that as a senator, Barney Franks has standards?

Otherwise, sure. He'd come to work not only in a dress; but flamboyantly so.

What would keep a Bonkey from getting all dressed up as a woman when he went to work?

As to the 2-sides being equal. That's what Romney said in his remarks. He blamed the culture of DC.

Now, you want to spread that culture out, into a world that doesn't accept it?

I know. I know. If affirmative action were futheer along, I'd have to submit to sensitivity training.

But that's why the Bonkey party is now full of losers.

Whereas I'd bet there are gay republicans who are very angry about this married man doing his cruising business; because it brings shame to men who are homosexuals. They'd rather be seen as "more normal than that." And, yes, capable of committed, long term relationships.

You don't find that in toilets. Oh, not up in the air, either.

The word used for perverted behaviors is aberrant. And, that's why this topic is making the rounds.

The other thing that strikes me from reading posts, here, is that there are republicans who don't want to injure others. So they leaned over backwards to accept what Larry Craig said as true.

Now, I didn't buy that.

Posted by Micah | August 29, 2007 7:28 PM

I don't agree that Craig "'represents the Republican party,' said Rep. Pete Hoekstra"
Why shoot yourself in the foot? I do NOT think Craig reps the Republican party. Isn't "represents" part of the duties of the party chair and the RNC?
Sure, its splitting hairs, but why equate Craig with the party. That's playing into the MSM hands, and doing their spin for them.

Carol... Barney Frank is a Representative serving in the House, although that doesn't change your point. Reps. should behave also, not just the Sens.

I really don't like the Craig dude, but I vote he serves out his term (which does expire 2008, no?) Unless William Jefferson resigns, then I might change my mind.

Posted by patrick neid | August 29, 2007 7:30 PM

Carol you keep missing my point---people have sex with strangers wherever they can--get over it.

Marriage vows? Who cares about them when it comes to politics. Hillary will be getting the nomination with a spouse accused of rape, clearly a mysogist and taking bj's from an intern. That's just for starters. Millions will line the red carpet to pay homage to Bill if she gets elected. Craig's misdeeds, repugnant as they may be to heteros, are minor by comparison--consequently my coed restroom remark.

Craig will be gone because he's an idiot on a deeper level. Stop trying to pontificate about the larger meaning of it all. Vitter stays because he cruised for hetero sex and Craig is gone because he cruised for homosexual sex in its most crude form--"known" restrooms. That's just how it is on the right side of the isle.

Posted by filistro | August 29, 2007 7:35 PM

The Republican presidential candidates are facing a YouTube debate in a few weeks. Millions of Americans will be watching. If one of the questions should happen to be:

"Highly placed Republicans have called for the resignation of Larry Craig. Why have there not been similar calls for the resignation of David Vitter?"

... what will be the answer?

Posted by Bennett | August 29, 2007 7:46 PM

I think Vitter didn't resign because the people of Louisiana didn't demand that he do so. Presumably he took a reading on that when the story first broke and figured out that his constituents weren't going to call for his removal, so he did the mea culpa and moved quietly on.

Let's hope Craig is doing the same thing, quickly getting the idea for himself whether or not his state wants him around for another year and running for reelection again. I don't get the impression that's what he's doing though. He seems to be in hunker down mode, denying and regretting and blaming someone else (police misconstrued his actions, etc.).

This would explain the heat, the calls for him to resign, referral to the ethics committee and so on. I think the message is, don't make the good people of Idaho force you out, Larry, go away quietly now with as much dignity as you can muster.

Yes, it is up to Idahoans to decide if they want him as their Senator, but it's also up to Craig to decide if he can truly serve them credibly and competently, especially since he's going to be treated as a pariah by his colleagues.

Posted by Carol Herman | August 29, 2007 7:49 PM

Patrick Neid, there's nothing here I have to get over.

Certainly,I know promiscuity in marriages presents dilemmas. But, at least, today, the divorce choice is out there. Just as it was finally "out there" for McGreevey's wife. He did, however, have to resign from the governor's office in New Jersey, first.

And, ya know what?

There's a difference about this scandal, than the one presented when Bill Clinton "diddled" with Monica. At that time, pretty much the democratic party stood behind keeping the president. And, the claims that Clinton should go, belonged, mostly to the GOP.

Especially on the claim "that it wasn't about sex. It was about 'lying.'

This time around>

First off, it's not a GOP 'problem." But it is a problem, now, for Larry Craig. And, I'm sure behind the scenes, his wife and family. Too bad he didn't weigh these things; because he has a marriage. And, most people regard monogamous sex as a way of judging the character of others. That's just reality.

And, when you run for public office. Or hold a job where the taxpayer is paying your paychec, the rules include that your behaviors will be judged.

So far, I don't see this story splitting people, the way Bubba's daliance did. (And, I shrugged, then. I thought there was a concerted effort to put Clinton in the box, so that the testimony came out the way it did.)

Does this mean heterosexual activies fall in a better light than homosexual ones? Probably. What if Monica was, instead, a young man? Here, I don't think Bubba would have gotten "his pass."

The other thing I've noticed; since this is a member of the GOP party; from the conservative state of Idaho; and and such a man who belongs to the conservative wing of his party; it's going to be up to these folks to make the ultimate choices.

Different ball game, I suppose, than when comparing this "toilet cruising," with Monica's pizza delivery.

But what Larry Craig exposes, to those, like me, who do not think he's telling the truth; and, instead is smearing the vice officer; and smearing the Idoho Statesman newspaper folk; is that these are missteps. (You could say, "his left foot didn't know it was wandering over to another stall." I don't care.)

But it's one of those things that's playing out now on the news. What's another blow job?


But this one is wrapped in charges of hypocracy.

Ultimately? It's gonna come down to the lying. Oh, yeah. "About what."

Well, that was the one where Bubba got a free pass.

You're right, though, Patrick Neid, there are differences between the parties. And, that needs to be taken into account. Craig's not an "idiot," though. He's a homosexual, well versed in the art-of-the-closet.

And, the one thing homosexuals once knew, that word could NEVER get out; has now got no door on that closet, at all.

As to Bubba. If he had pulled this stunt, and gotten caught PRIOR to the election of 1992, he'd have been radioactive.

That the stories were out there, early? No one believed the women telling them.

Up ahead, if there's an investigation, in the senate, there will be homosexual men coming forward. Nah. No DNA samples on a Blue Gap shirt. But what are the chances that Larry Craig's denials are believed?

The hetero and homosexual worlds are not direct opposites. Can't play the goose and gander game.

But the "sex news" plays differently, too.

Republicans are upset, more so than not. And, what will snag Larry Craig is the lying. Wasn't that the message that was played adinfinitum for Bubba?

Posted by Bennett | August 29, 2007 7:51 PM

Filistro wrote:

"Highly placed Republicans have called for the resignation of Larry Craig. Why have there not been similar calls for the resignation of David Vitter?"

That's probably going to be an easy one to finesse, don't you think? Craig was arrested, charged and plead guilty. That didn't happen with Vitter. That answer leaves out the icky stuff.

Posted by RBMN | August 29, 2007 7:57 PM

He should resign just for trying to play the "I'm a US Senator. Whatda think about that?" card with the arresting officer. Obviously Craig was expecting to get a pass, as he's probably gotten many times before, in Idaho especially. He should go.

Posted by filistro | August 29, 2007 7:58 PM

No, I don't think it's so easy to finesse, Bennett.

Vitter issued a public apology for paying prostitutes to do some really quite icky things, but we didn't hear any high-level calls from Republicans for his immediate resignation.

I honestly don't know what answer a candidate could give to the question that wouldn't be both clumsy and politically damaging. I do hope they're practising and preparing for this one.

(What are they called... "murder boards"? Quite apt, no?)

Posted by Bennett | August 29, 2007 8:04 PM

Filistro, Vitter was not arrested, he wasn't charged with a crime and he didn't plead guilty. Craig did all of those things.

That answer leaves the issue of sex out of it. This is why McCain is talking up the "standard" now, get convicted? get out. They already know how they're going to answer this.

As to why McCain didn't call for Rep. Kennedy's resignation? That's the other side of the aisle. Republicans have to look after their own house, Democrats have to decide what they will tolerate.

Posted by Carol Herman | August 29, 2007 8:08 PM

Patrick Neid, Hillary Clinton has not been elected president, yet.

Her negatives remain high.

And, for her to get into office, she has a few hurdles to overcome. The inter-party HATRED. Stuff you don't see; but that's there just the same.

And, then you have to add that the GOP party would become so idiotic, that they wouldn't even nominate a PERSON who appealed to mainstream voters.

How many which ways can 2008 go?

In 1992, (when I used to watch television), I actually saw the show where Larry King got Ross Perot to commit. And,within weeks, (funding this out of his own pocket), Perot's name was up on 50 ballots.

You could say "because the Bonkeys were cooperating." And, you could point out that Ross Perot also "quit," proving himself to be paranoid. So that at best, when the election came around, he pulled 19%. That was a "high water mark for a crazy independent."

We don't know who is gonna come out of the woodwork, ahead, and run "solo." No party.

Maybe, more than one?

Let's say one of the top contendahs, doesn't make it, and decides he can "go solo." Romney has the money. NOT THAT I'M CALLING ROMNEY!

I'm just saying that 2008 may be one of those "pickles," where either the primary system doesn't give a clear winner.

Or like the Bonkeys tossed Howie Dean; and tried to put in Wesley Clark, a better alternative than John Kerry. But couldn't.

In 2004, it was also obvious that Kerry needed his rich wife's money; because he not only got hit by the Swift Boat Vets. He wasn't getting the funds to really run a great campaign. And, he didn't run even a 2nd rate campaign.

While Algore, the sore loser, didn't even try to help.

Oh, by the way. Algore "could be the independent." I'm not saying he IS. Just that there's a possibility out there that Hillary's hips aren't her ace in the hole, when it comes to traction.

And, then again? It might shape up with "someone we don't know" behind Door #D.

And, GUiliani's health may not hold up.

Ditto, for Fred Thompson. Cancers are an ugly disease.

And, before you count your chickens, you can worry if the eggs you have will even hatch.

Not only that, but congress is split nearly 50/50. And, the negatives are running high on both sides of the aisle.

WHile I don't even think Idaho's troubles with Larry Craig, will even remain a blip on the screen. The story broke too early. And, a number of members of the GOP aren't amused.

The sex angle, now, though, makes for an interesting interlude.

Doesn't help Hillary. Sorry.

Posted by flenser | August 29, 2007 8:43 PM


Vitter issued a public apology for paying prostitutes

Actually, he did no such thing. And I get tired of giving liberals a free pass to tell lies.

I think it is wonderful that you Dems are so concerned about the behavior of people in Congress. You get to work getting your own people with problems to resign and let us worry about ours.

You can start with Jefferson, Frank, and Kennedy.

Posted by Steph | August 29, 2007 8:51 PM

Now, don't take this the wrong way. He pled guilty to a crime regardless of his stated motives. For that stupidity alone he doesn't deserve his office.

I have questions about the report... I don't know about anybody else but I really can't see much through those stall door cracks... unless one puts one's eye to the crack as was described that Senator Craig did. So, how did the seated officer see Sen. Craig wringing his hands?

Flay me for a dummy if you want but it just... smells. Kind of like what was done to Frist which took him two+ years to clear and I doubt the fact that he was cleared of any wrongdoing made much news beyond Tennessee, if even the whole state.

Now, while none of that takes away from the fact the guy's an idiot and should step down for that reason, it strikes me as odd that when the media has shown enormous bias in their reporting of "facts" that some things just seem to get accepted regardless. I also find it interesting that this happened a couple of months ago and is just now making national news via a tip that came across a "news" desk. But then, I'm not a Senator, police officer, or a journalist. I'm just plain ol' me.

Posted by Bennett | August 29, 2007 9:05 PM

Steph wrote:

"I don't know about anybody else but I really can't see much through those stall door cracks."

For some reason that just made me laugh. Because honestly Steph you've probably never thought about it. You get in, you do your thing, you get out. Like most everyone else. But in this case, we're talking about a police officer stationed in the stall for the specific purpose of observing certain behavior.

I think one thing we all know for sure. Nobody's going to be cruising the men's bathrooms in that airport (or maybe any other airport) for quite some time. So the police have certainly accomplished their goal. And that probably makes the cops who got the duty very happy.

Posted by fouse, gary c | August 29, 2007 9:44 PM

Senator Larry (I am not a Gay) Craig

Where does one begin in writing about this story? The more I consider it, the more angles I see. No matter how I slice it, however, I don't see a good ending for the Republican senator from Idaho. In fact, his press conference today just made his situation a lot worse.

The background is pretty much known at this point. On June 11, Craig was arrested at Minneapolis Airport, charged with having solicited sex from an undercover cop in an airport bathroom stall. I won't bother with the sordid details as outlined in the police report. They don't represent my main issue. We now know that Craig returned to Minneapolis early this month and quietly pleaded to a misdemeanor count of disturbing the peace. Then, just in the past few days, the story broke. Today, Craig appeared before the media in Boise and insisted he was not gay and had done nothing wrong. He characterized his plea as a mistake because he didn't get legal advice and was now going to hire an attorney to explore his legal options. He also lashed out at the local paper, the Idaho Statesman, for persecuting him.

First point: He has no legal options. The Idaho lawmaker-I repeat, LAWMAKER, has already entered a plea to reduced charges and paid a fine. The legal issue is over.

As to today's statements,........ c,mon. Is he going to tell us that the police report is false? Then why did he plead guilty instead of contesting the charges in the most vigorous manner? That he was a victim of entrapment? How could the cop entrap him when he (the cop) was first seated in the men's room stall when Craig arrived, peered into the cop's stall then entered the next stall where he began the actions that led to his arrest? I guess his position will be that his actions in the bathroom were misinterpreted, thus, leading to his arrest. Hey folks, use your common sense and your own life experiences. We have all been there, right? When we are in a public bathroom stall, how many times have we slid our foot into the next stall and touched the foot of the occupant "next door"? How many times have we slid our hand under the stall divider into the space of another? We all know that some gays, do indeed engage in this behavior in public bathrooms. But who else does it?

Which leads me to my next point: Rumors about Craig's sexual preferences have been floating around for decades, and he has always denied them. It seems that now others are coming forward (anonymously at this point) to describe similar experiences with the senator. But really! Aren't we living in the year 2007? If this man is gay, would it not be better to come out and state it? Would it have killed his political career? I will readily concede that heterosexuals like myself probably can't appreciate what it is like to be gay and to keep it a secret, especially when one is married and has children. I admit that. But it just seems to me that society has come so far in accepting homosexuals for what they are. I personally don't know this man's sexual preference nor do I care. I don't think it should disqualify him from politics. However, soliciting sex acts in a public bathroom is still against the law, and if that is what he did, then he has no excuses.

Now for the political fallout. Of course, the Democrats are estatic. They don't need to say anything, just let the Republicans deal with the mess. Liberal pundits and bloggers are having a field day because so many Republicans have made an issue out of "family values", Craig included. In fact, Craig's voting record in Congress has put him at odds with issues favored by gay activists. For instance, he has opposed gay marriage. Many will say that this makes him Hypocrite Number One. Well, if you think about it, actually not. Why does every homosexual have to be in favor of gay marriage? I know of one conservative radio talk show host, who is openly gay, and who is opposed to gay marriage. Why cannot a gay person feel that marriage is an institution reserved for a man and a woman? I'll bet many do.

However, if Mr Craig has been going around preaching "family values", then he is certainly vulnerable to the hypocrite charge. I don't think I need to elaborate on that point.

Is there a double standard in all this? Of course. Let us not forget that Barney Frank (D-MA) is still in Congress, years after it was revealed that his boyfriend at the time was using Frank's apartment as a gay bordello while Barney was at work on Capital Hill. It never hurt his career much. What about Gerry Studds, another Massachusetts Democrat, who was actually having sex with a 17 year old male page? Did he resign? No. He defiantly told everyone that it was a consensual affair, and if folks didn't like it, they could...., well, you know. His Democratic colleagues loudly supported him, and he went on to be re-elected several times by the good denizons of Massachusetts. (Studds' story was brought back to light during the Mark Foley scandal involving Capital pages.) But let us set sex aside. Why is William ("Cool Cash") Jefferson, (D-LA) still in Congress? He is currently under indictment for accepting a $100,000 bribe from undercover FBI agents-$90,000 of which was later recovered in his home freezer. Name me one Democrat in Congress who has called for him to step down.

So, in light of all that, should Senator Craig resign? In my view, yes. Double standard or not, the facts of this case show that he has no business being in the US Senate-not because he is gay-but because he engaged in behavior that was illegal and completely inappropriate for a member of Congress or any political figure. I say that he did it because he has pleaded guilty. Unfortunately, it appears at this point, that Craig will continue to dig himself further and further, making himself a laughing stock and dragging his party down with him.

As an independent voter, I would say to the Republicans that they should clean their own house and let the public see how the Democrats refuse to clean theirs. The Foleys, the Vitters and the Craigs need to go. As to Senator Craig, I hope that he will just come clean, resign and get on with the business of putting his life and family back together in private.

gary fouse

Posted by flenser | August 29, 2007 9:51 PM

As an independent voter, I would say to the Republicans that they should clean their own house and let the public see how the Democrats refuse to clean theirs.

Spoken like a true Democrat.

Posted by Scrapiron | August 29, 2007 10:14 PM

A democrat can hold one (belonging to a congressional page) in his mouth until it goes soft, or butt bong one and serve years in congress. A republican can tap his foot in the outhouse and has to resign. Just saying it's an upside world and soon everyone will fall off. Barney, where are you and why aren't you defending one of your kind. One thing for sure, this proves how stupid the majority of Americans really are. Of course the left needs a cover for all the current criminal activity by the Clinton mafia.

Posted by Bennett | August 29, 2007 10:23 PM

"Barney, where are you and why aren't you defending one of your kind."

Actually, Frank has said Craig should not resign. But I think that has more to do with wanting him to stay around because it would most likely hurt the GOP and not because the Congressman feels any real need to support the Senator.

Posted by Carol Herman | August 29, 2007 10:50 PM

WOW! The Net is interesting!

ABC hangs news videos up on U-TUBE.

Lucianne has links.

And, one of the U-Tube minutes is spent with Bill Maher. And, Barney Frank is one of his guests. Yes, Frank is intelligent! And, yes, he presents a good argument. Which comes from the affirmative action party. Which means, here, in America, we really do have choices when we go to vote.

And, then, one of the comments on Lucianne states: LARRY CRAIG DOESN'T HAVE CHILDREN! The 3 kids are not his; but his wife's. She's been married, before.

This means? (Well, at least the kids have a choice! They can drop the name "Craig," like a hot potato. And, maybe, they never even used it? That would be a blessing. Given how events will turn out.

Before Craig became a senator, he was elected, starting in 1980, to the HOUSE. In 1982, he wasn't married. And, he was accused as one of the 20 or so homosexual congress-critters who was having sex with underage pages. He always has an excuse.

Back in 1982, his "excuse" was that because he wasn't married; he was accused of homosexual acts. And, he said "that's not fair."

He sure does know how to work the "no one knows I'm in the closet" routine, very, very well.

Except? The GOP isn't buying. And, besides McCain, Norm Coleman (Senator from Minnesota), has also called for him to resign.

Given how "slow" Craig is. In other words, he's arrested in early June. But doesn't "plead" till August, when he has a court appearance; you better believe he was sure this would blow away, and no one would know.

Barney Frank is very angry! He hates hypocrites. And, he all but pushed Larry Craig out of his job. How so?

Stop and think a minute.

Because I've seen gays who've come forward. Where they recognized the "footsie signals," easily. And, they want this man OUT. He can resign. Or he can be forced to resign. There's no sympathy card in the deck.

Any-hoo, I find it interesting that gays aren't united in keeping this fella, around. Not the ones who vote republican! Which means? There are people who vote for the republican ticket on issues other than homosexuality and affirmative action "preferences."

Barney Frank, even in the short clip on Bill Maher's Show, up on U-Tube, is BRILLIANT. And, that's why he's returned to Congress each and every time. By voters who don't think sexuality is an issue.

Leaving that behind, however, and driving across America, the audiences change. And, there's lots of folk out there who really detest perversions. And, that's costly, if you're a pervert, and you want to get votes; let's say in churches. Or among Evangelicals. (Which is where Barney Franks really came down hard! Because of the HYPOCRACY.)

Sometimes, I think only a few people are up here looking around. And, then I realize just how active the Net is. And, how much information pours in.

I doubt this story just up's and disappears without a resolution.

Posted by Carol Herman | August 29, 2007 10:58 PM

Hold onto your hat, Steph. Just like Bill Clinton's saga with the "pizza delivery," you're about to learn more things than you thought possible.

Homosexuals have posted, openly, about how some bathrooms just "reek of reputation." Not just at airports. But along truck routes.

Where in some of them, holes have been drilled into the stall's divider walls. So a man, with an erection, can stick his through the hole. And, never even meet the man on the other side. Oral gratification seems to be preferred on this adventures.

You're naive.

Larry Craig isn't.

And, I'd bet he's been "thinking about how he was gonna handle it," since he got arrested back on June 8th!

Sometimes, getting away with behaviors becomes "just a game."

Not for amatuers.

Posted by Carol Herman | August 29, 2007 11:01 PM

Hold onto your hat, Steph. Just like Bill Clinton's saga with the "pizza delivery," you're about to learn more things than you thought possible.

Homosexuals have posted, openly, about how some bathrooms just "reek of reputation." Not just at airports. But along truck routes.

Where in some of them, holes have been drilled into the stall's divider walls. So a man, with an erection, can stick his through the hole. And, never even meet the man on the other side. Oral gratification seems to be preferred on this adventures.

You're naive.

Larry Craig isn't.

And, I'd bet he's been "thinking about how he was gonna handle it," since he got arrested back on June 8th!

Sometimes, getting away with behaviors becomes "just a game."

Not for amatuers.

Posted by hunter | August 29, 2007 11:08 PM

McCain, by his own standard, needs to resign immediately. He took bribes from Keating back in the last financial scandal.
I am wondering exactly why a Senator should resign for a misdemeanor.
There is something about rEpublicans that makes unable to govern, because on the slightest excuse we simply make each other resigna dn quit.
If Craig had dome something really bad, it would have been 'felony'. Instead it was a very simple misdemeanor.
But for a sanctimonious old back stabber like McCain to try and off Craig over this????
The Republican party is heading for a cliff, if we have not already sailed right over it.

Posted by Carol Herman | August 29, 2007 11:22 PM

Hunter: Because it hurts the team!

The neat thing about America, in all our "diversified" special interests; is a reality that the parties don't have to offer the same "vanilla."

When Mark Foley was attacked, the timing was done to affect the election cycle, last November.

This isn't the same thing.

And, even if people, here, "change the subject," so that McCain, for speaking out against Larry Craig's behaviors; and recommending that he resign ... WIth "well then, McCain should also go," miss the point by miles and miles.

The GOP is concerned that the electorate is divided. And, homosexuality isn't an issue that brings in GOP voters. Why antagonize voters?

McCain's come forward. So has Norm Coleman (Senator from Minnesota, in whose state this crime took place.) This is done in order to pressure Craig into resigning.

He also saw the message that Mitt Romney put out. And, made sure Drudge covered.

Oh, and Drudge has up that Bush, in the White House, is also "disappointed in Craig."

What's it gonna take for Craig to go? Dunno.

But when he claims he's married? Okay. I just hope his wife wasn't stupid enough to let him "toy" with her children! I have no idea what kinds of denial she uses. Since Craig pulls her forward to deal with these denial "interviews."

But again, you'll learn more, ahead. As long as Craig refuses to go.

That's the argument. The other stuff? Just tries to change the subject.

When the Senate Ethics Committee gets this hot potato, I hope they have the brains to see that Suzanne's kids are okay. And, have never been abused. Some moms? They just make-believe nothing is happening.

Same story popped up with the kids the priests molested. They couldn't even go home and tell their parents.

Made it much worse for the Catholic Church to live in denial for as long as the Vatican did.

Be interesting, if somebody from Children's Services, can't look behind the curtain, Larry Craig thought he pulled shut.

Posted by Rose | August 30, 2007 12:14 AM

Craig should AT LEAST announce he will NOT be running for re-election.

The fact is that Dims have NO moral values, but GOP VOTERS generally do - and they won't support a party that tolerates deviant and illegal behavior. And the GOP knows it, and the DIM PARTY knows it, too.

The fact is that the Dims SHOULD clean house, but the fact they do NOT doesn't let the GOP off the hook, because they are NOT SUCCESSFULLY courting DIM VOTERS - they are courting CONSERVATIVE voters --- people who demand INTEGRITY and HONESTY from their politicians - understanding that people who lie and prevaricate and commit morally UNACCEPTABLE conduct are going to do so in a broad spectrum of unacceptable behavior.

We are fully entitled to a complete accounting of the conduct, both in private, and in public, of Public Servants - they took an oath of FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY towards the Constitution, their office, their voters, America, and their home state.
This man also took an oath to his wife, as well.
everyone makes mistakes - but this guy compounded his shortcomings with insultingly inept lies, in an attempt to further cover up and excuse his unacceptable conduct - the same exact thing that the GOP found unacceptable in NIXON - remember - everyone said, even if they couldn't prove he was connected to the crime of invading the psychiatrists office, they KNEW he was connected to THE COVER UP of the crimes, AFTERWARDS - and that was unacceptable.

And Vitter did make a public apology, and didn't try to lie about what he was caught doing, and did make a very abject public apology to his wife, and that does make a difference. But his story isn't over, yet, either!

Craig's apology was designed to try to declare HIS INNOCENCE in spite of his confessions OF THE VERY CONDUCT THE OFFICER ACCUSED HIM OF - insulting our intelligence beyond the pale.
And insulting his wife, who stood beside him in shame, wearing sunglasses.

He'd make a fine DEMOCRAT.

But Democrats do not make fine politicians, or fellow community members.

I won't ever vote for a politician who adds to the problems of SAFETY in PUBLIC RESTROOMS - and then tries to say he "didn't do anything wrong!"

Some of you who do not have children, or never helped directly with your wife's logistical problems in caring for them, may have no sense whatsoever of THAT ASPECT of Mr. Craig's behavior.
I could care less, whether you think he should be charged with a crime or have to leave office over it - he is still unfit for office and NOT ENTITLED TO OUR SUPPORT.
This isn't an issue of whether he is "MERELY HUMAN". IT IS AN ISSUE OF HIS FITNESS FOR PUBLIC OFFICE.

The only EXCUSE for a COMMUNITY is it's fitness in presenting a nesting environment FIT FOR FAMILIES. If its community leadership don't help promote that environment, THEY HAVE NO RIGHT to be in leadership.

This is NOT ABOUT any "RIGHT" of community leaders to have moral failings, or to promote moral failings.
Their DUTY is to promote a HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT for the community members.

Craig cannot do that.

Posted by Carol Herman | August 30, 2007 12:55 AM

Rose, you've got to be careful with those charges. They're insulting, AND innacurate! You cannot blanket condemn people with whom you happen to disagree with on politics.

And, you can't generalize, with any accuracy, either, from one event, where one man, who is a senator, is also trying to deny he "cruised" in a toilet. Even though he's married. Even though he comes from a conservative state. And, even though he not only claims to have conservatives views, himself. But he votes the record.

And, he's a fraud.

The other thing we don't know, since I just discovered it reading a blogger's post; is that he's not the father of Suzanne's children. I think there are 3. And, it's not uncommon for homosexuals to abuse children, IF the mom lets them get away with it. Whose gonna investigate the ramifications of that?

Why do women protect homosexual men, where they'll go on stage, and "play" the beard? Hard to say. But I'd bet it's financial. Where there's a trade-off for the marriage. Where the man doesn't even have to bring his libido to bed.

As to Craig, right now, it's the hypocracy. And, it's hitting the GOP where it hurts. Because they've welcomed Evangelicals, and other Christian Rights faiths into the tent. You can't get around this one. The affirmative action party doesn't have to deal with it. But the GOP does!

And, yes, there's truth to the facts that homosexual activities are judged in a different light, especially when promiscuity enters into the types of sex homosexuals have.

There's a man who was interview (in the shadows) on TV. He wrote a book about the "page" system in Congress. And, that he had personal knowledge of 20 congressmen who were gay. And, who "came onto the pages" for sex. (And, drugs, from cocaine, to hashish, to marijuana were readily available.) Do high school kids, today, use drugs? Lots do. Do they have sex. Yes. But when adults take advantage of this, we have laws that can put guys in jail. Those laws answer needs that the public has, too.

I remember a wise rabbi telling me that the Bible is full of laws that came about because they're hard to do. (He was just listing the first 10 that are up there.) Everyone can spout them. But he said rabbis knew it worked for society; but it wasn't human nature at play. And, to have a society people had to learn to respect the rules, rather than just do whatever it was they wanted to do. And, the laws, themselves? If you can do them, you're doing hard work! That was his point! It's not easy.

If people learned to respect that laws are there for the benefits of "most" ... except the most perverted. It's possible to restrain the worst behaviors.

Even though the priests that had sex with alter boys, disregarded this. And, worse, because they knew the Vatican had clout, they thought they'd be free from any interference.

Larry Craig, just like the Catholic Church, going through the financial wringer over the abuse charges, will learn it's not enough to be in the senate, to get a "free ticket."

By the way, that's the route Larry Craig picked. He's hung "tough" before. But in the past his colleagues didn't make a "Federal Case Out of It." And, now they are.

You bet, the republican politicians can "talk a good game." And, now they have to ante up. Or shut up.

Claiming that Larry Craig is being smeared isn't a very effective defense.

And, Garcy C. Fouse put up a wonderful post. Everyone should read it; because it shows the flaws in Larry Craig's current stance.

How long he stands there?

Well, already, the GOP isn't giving him cover.

In a world where the GOP worries about the media.

And, the coming election.

The last thing the GOP needs is to be seen as a bunch of hypocrites.

Name calling, on the other hand, just plays into the hands of the Bonkeys.

Anyway, I really, really hope that republican politicians don't go out and name-call Bonkeys. That's too stupid for words.

Posted by swabjockey05 | August 30, 2007 5:00 AM

"I did not have sex with that woman"

"I am not a Homosexual"

Sounds a bit similar? Lying Shysters usually do...

Slick Bill thought a BJ wasn't sex...maybe this guy thinks the same thing?

What's the definition of "is"?
What's the definition of "Homo"?

Maybe in his mind he's a "Bi-sexual" not a "homo" (Being old school, I don't see the dif).

Maybe he "thinks" a Homosexual is one who "loves" his male sex partner...since this guy "loves" his wife (only gives BJ for the sport of it)...he figures he's not a Homo.

Who cares? Not me. Let the voters decide

Posted by the fly-man | August 30, 2007 6:20 AM

I wonder how concerned the GOP would be if the Senator's early retirement was to occur in a State with a Democratic Governor who could appoint a Democrat to his seat? Party loyalty and political expediency trumps everything.

Posted by Steph | August 30, 2007 6:56 AM

Carol Herman said: "Hold onto your hat, Steph. Just like Bill Clinton's saga with the "pizza delivery," you're about to learn more things than you thought possible.

Homosexuals have posted, openly, about how some bathrooms just "reek of reputation." Not just at airports. But along truck routes.

Where in some of them, holes have been drilled into the stall's divider walls. So a man, with an erection, can stick his through the hole. And, never even meet the man on the other side. Oral gratification seems to be preferred on this adventures.

You're naive.

Larry Craig isn't."

Perhaps I am naive... by your standards...just because I don't swallow the MSM lines hook, line, and sinker? I'm well aware that there are ways and there are ways for people to do just about anything they have a mind to. However, I don't recall any of those conditions being outlined in the report.

At the end of the day, I'm not making excuses for the man. He's an idiot, plain and simple. However, I do question the timing of the news, the pressure under which he's being put for a misdemeanor charge in comparison to other activities of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. Add to that a growing mistrust for the MSM the picture looks a whole lot murkier than just a stupid Senator who got caught soliciting in a public bathroom.

Someone way up in the comments said something about Iowa should handle it. They voted the fellow into office and he represents their state. I think that's the best idea since it's their representation that is at stake. For anybody in Washington, D.C. to handle it, is pretty much like the pot calling the kettle black. I can count on one hand those who deserve to stay in office.

I want to know what's going on that our attention is being redirected while it's happening to later hit us broadside when it's too late to really do anything about it. Think about the "shamnesty bill" that almost passed because nobody knew about it or the particulars until it was almost too late... Now, do you think D.C. is going to take a defeat by its constituents like that lying down?

So, what I'm saying here is don't lose sight of the bigger picture. While Craig is the BIG story in the MSM what else is going on?

Posted by Carol Herman | August 30, 2007 3:20 PM

Steph, there aren't enough answers in the universe for some people. It's like dealing with the 9/11 Troofers.

And, all the MSM is doing now, on this Craig story, is staying very MUM. I'd bet they see this as a calamity to the GOP. "Another Mark Foley" episode, where Mark Foley heralded it in ... a flip from majority to minority status, in congress. For the GOP.

Sure. The whole HOUSE goes out every two years. (I learned that one!) But in the senate? In 2008 only 12 Bonkeys have to run. And, about 24 (or double the amount) of GOP seats are up for grabs.)

Barney Franks has also gone on TV, and gotten the coverage for it; calling Larry Craig a hypocrite.

And, then, Franks went to talk about 2008 BEING CRUCIAL. He wants the Bonkeys to win. The White House. As well as to keep this small majority in Congress. And, he pointed to the Texas sodomy law that got shot down.

Bush was governor at the time. And, said homosexual sex should be kept illegal.

The Texas case went to the Supreme Court; where the decision, in favor of allowing "consenting adult" sex; so the Texas Court's homosexual laws were judges illegal ... was 5/4. With Scalia writing a furious decent.

Barney Franks said that IF Stevens, now 85, was to "go," ... (And, I could add, Ruth Bader Ginsberg). And, Bush selects the next Supreme Court appointment? Barney Franks said the GOP position is to make homosexual sex illegal. Federally.

It's not as if this isn't a big issue, here.

And, I do expect the Bonkeys to make the most of it. Since I'm not sure there's a majority opinion out there that "interferes" with what consenting adults choose to do. Sometimes? They choose positions that leads to death; and the coronor's reports note these.

As to the MSM, they're no different today, than they've been for decades. Affirmative action folk.

And, where the GOP "screwed up?" That's in how the GOP congress-critters were caught behaving. (Yeah, someone posted that Harry Reid thinks the low approval ratings for congress comes from Bush's poor rates.)

So, we've gone into constant warfare in politics.

As a matter of fact, since Algore refused to concede in 2000; we've been dealing with "sore-loser" politics ever since.

And, right now? Larry Craig is holding onto his seat. Even though there are "recommendations" out there that he resign. And, even though he's been forced off his senior seats on committees. (Which is the meat-and-potatoes part of being in congress.)

I don't want to here the GOP whine! I was thrilled when Daschle got tossed out of his Dakota seat. (South Dakota?) And, yes, that was a humongous loss for the Bonkeys. That's why in 2006, they ran their winning campaigns as Blue Dogs.

So, little by little lots of Americans learn about politicians. Very few approve.

Where I now worry? After I read that Larry Craig is claiming his wife's kids are his; I realize they're not his at all. She brought them with her into her marriage. And, I sure hope this "idiot" as you call him, didn't take advantage of these children, just because the mom "could" give him a pass.

How serious are the charges against Larry Craig? VERY.

And, it's not a partisan issue, either. But it is one where the affirmative action crowd can lose. (Barney Franks said so. He's not dumb.) And, he knows how to fight.

Since it's possible Larry Craig isn't gonna resign, then he's gonna confront an Ethics hearing. I doubt if the senators who will be doing the questioning, will get nasty with the cop "just because they want to protect one of their own." No. They don't.

And, Norm Coleman IS one of the voices asking for Larry Craig to resign. Coleman's one of the senators from Minnesota. WHERE THE CRIME TOOK PLACE. And, for which Larry Craig pled guilty.

I still don't see Craig "going all the way." Perhaps, he's hoping he can get a paying job in a republican "think tank." Which is the way the insiders protect their own.

But there's a lot up for grabs. Who says Larry Craig will be offered anything but his pension, and his hat?

Post a comment